If all the guns evaporated at once, and all the knowledge of guns went with it, the people that ruled the world would be those with the best swords/bows/clubs.
Killing someone with a sword or club is a much more grissly and involved matter than pulling a trigger and blowing someone's brains out. 'Drive-by blow-dart? I don't think so.
The relative ease and convenience with which death and murder is meted out is a problem.
True, all legislation that impacts individual rights must be made in light of the unintended consequences. How do you reconcile the harmful externalities of drug use in society with the benefits legalization would include?
This is a very good question and the toughest part of this entire debate. The way to reconcile this within the framework of a society would be to censure acts resulting from drug use which harm others, much as we do with any other potentially dangerous activity (such as driving a car, drinking, etc). As I alluded to in my opening post, driving under the influence of drugs should of course be illegal (and in my opinion drunk driving should carry a much stiffer penalty). The same can be said of individuals who engage in abuse or neglect as a result of drug use; this is illegal when its alcohol related, so logically it would be if related to other drugs as well.
Finally (I don't remember if I mentioned this yet or not:p), legalization of drugs would lead to careful regulation of dosage and purity, thereby decreasing the negative effects and chance for biological addiction.
Side Note: I'd absolutely love to get into the Second Amendment debate in another thread, but I'm gonna stick to the issue at hand here. 8^)
This is a very good question and the toughest part of this entire debate. The way to reconcile this within the framework of a society would be to censure acts resulting from drug use which harm others, much as we do with any other potentially dangerous activity (such as driving a car, drinking, etc). As I alluded to in my opening post, driving under the influence of drugs should of course be illegal (and in my opinion drunk driving should carry a much stiffer penalty). The same can be said of individuals who engage in abuse or neglect as a result of drug use; this is illegal when its alcohol related, so logically it would be if related to other drugs as well.
Yes, I suppose that would work. But something in my gut tells me that it's a bad idea to legalize heroin... (I probably know on some subconscious level that I'd be an over-night heroin addict! :tongue2: )
Note: you should edit the post above me Alatar and put the first paragraph in [ quote]s. It's confusing if you don't know that you're replying to someone (me, in this case).
Finally (I don't remember if I mentioned this yet or not), legalization of drugs would lead to careful regulation of dosage and purity, thereby decreasing the negative effects and chance for biological addiction.
Heroin is a biologically addictive agent regardless of purity, etc. Just so you know.
Note: you should edit the post above me Alatar and put the first paragraph in [ quote]s. It's confusing if you don't know that you're replying to someone (me, in this case).
Lol thanks, I've fixed it. This is what I get for posting quickly.
Quote from bardo_trout »
Heroin is a biologically addictive agent regardless of purity, etc. Just so you know.
Yes, of course. In fact, its more addictive the more pure it is. That's not what I was implying though; my argument is that the legalization of heroin would create market incentives to create a less harmful version.
No, you have stated that those who take illegal drugs sometimes harm others. The drugs, themselves, have done no harm to anyone but the person who used them.
All agents that contribute to an end effect are responsible for that end effect. If an agent is an effective variable, as in "true state = effective, false state = ineffective," then it is often called a "root" or "essential cause." A person who breaks into cars (to get money for meth) would otherwise not break into cars it weren't for meth, making meth the "effective variable" and "essential cause."
Your're saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but replacing "guns" with "drugs" and "kill" with "negatively affect." The fundamental difference is that guns don't significantly and physically alter the mind of the user.
Quote from LJustus »
You don't make the same case against alcohol or tobacco, despite the highly addictive nature of those substances. Perhaps the fact that these are generally accepted by society, made legally by legal companies who are trying to make them as cheaply as possible (profit is good), and regulated by the government would transpose over to substances which are now illegal.
Whether or not I make the same case against alcohol or tobacco is moot, but it's a very popular red herring logical fallacy in illegal drug discussions.
A person who breaks into cars (to get money for meth) would otherwise not break into cars it weren't for meth
So, because one of the logical arguments for the legalization of drugs is that they would lose the taboo, their "coolness" if you will. . .
which causes less people to want to try drugs. . .
which causes less people to become addicted. . .
which results in less secondary crime. . .
then, you should be arguing for legalization.
I believe that the problem with this debate is that one side is arguing logical deductive arguments, and the other is arguing inductive arguments, personal anecdotes, and supposition.
So, because one of the logical arguments for the legalization of drugs is that they would lose the taboo, their "coolness" if you will. . .
which causes less people to want to try drugs. . .
which causes less people to become addicted. . .
which results in less secondary crime. . .
then, you should be arguing for legalization.
Meth is one of the least "cool" drugs there is. People don't try it because they want to be cool, they try it because they're sad about their life and it makes them feel happy for a while. Legalizing meth is not an antidepressant, I'm afraid.
So, because one of the logical arguments for the legalization of drugs is that they would lose the taboo, their "coolness" if you will. . .
which causes less people to want to try drugs. . .
which causes less people to become addicted. . .
which results in less secondary crime. . .
then, you should be arguing for legalization.
I believe that the problem with this debate is that one side is arguing logical deductive arguments, and the other is arguing inductive arguments, personal anecdotes, and supposition.
I've never done drugs because of the illegal mystique about them. I think maybe you might be drawing that conclusion based on supposition and a lack of personal experience.
So, because one of the logical arguments for the legalization of drugs is that they would lose the taboo, their "coolness" if you will. . .
which causes less people to want to try drugs. . .
which causes less people to become addicted. . .
which results in less secondary crime. . .
then, you should be arguing for legalization.
You're forgetting about the substantial mitigating factor with reduction of the "cool factor" in legalization.
Legalization will make drugs "safer" and certainly cheaper and more easilly available. How this will not increase use, especially when we aren't taking addicts and dealers out of society, is completely beyond me. That additional use will result in more addiction, crime and negative externalities, far more so than those inflicted on innocent parties by drug dealers.
We can do a simple calculation of the number of lives lost by each, but I cannot imagine how the lives lost because of organized crime with drugs is greater than the number of lives lost by drug abuse. In Oregon alone, something like 70% of the kids in the state foster family program had parents who were meth users (The Oregonian had a long article series about this). That's thousands of childrens in completely broken homes. Doesn't the evidence speak for itself? The solution, clearly, is to make it harder to get meth, not to make it legal in some "controlled" way so that it's even easier to inflict the harm on others.
Quote from LJustus »
I believe that the problem with this debate is that one side is arguing logical deductive arguments, and the other is arguing inductive arguments, personal anecdotes, and supposition.
I've never done drugs because of the illegal mystique about them. I think maybe you might be drawing that conclusion based on supposition and a lack of personal experience.[/quote]
Actually, if you read some of the leading experts in the field, they all agree that the taboo, or coolness, and the resulting peer pressure is one of the main reasons that kids try drugs. I could google you up about a thousand links, but I figured I didn't need to because this is basically common knowledge.
I never started using drugs because of the taboo, but you and I are not "everybody". Other people don't always make good decisions.
Quote from Darth Cow »
You're forgetting about the substantial mitigating factor with reduction of the "cool factor" in legalization.
Legalization will make drugs "safer" and certainly cheaper and more easilly available. How this will not increase use, especially when we aren't taking addicts and dealers out of society, is completely beyond me.
Dealers would most likely be a thing of the past if drugs were legalized. Business that wanted to could produce drugs (regulated by the FDA) far cheaper than the average dealer. then, the goods would be sold in a store - much like alcohol and tobacco are today. I don't see a lot of alcohol/tobacco dealers standing on the street corners. Do you?
That additional use will result in more addiction, crime and negative externalities, far more so than those inflicted on innocent parties by drug dealers.
That's just it though. . . the logical argument is that legalization will decrease drug use. Not only that, but it will reduce violent crime associated with drug use.
We can do a simple calculation of the number of lives lost by each, but I cannot imagine how the lives lost because of organized crime with drugs is greater than the number of lives lost by drug abuse. In Oregon alone, something like 70% of the kids in the state foster family program had parents who were meth users (The Oregonian had a long article series about this). That's thousands of childrens in completely broken homes. Doesn't the evidence speak for itself?
I came from a broken home - not due to drug use, but a broken home nonetheless. I am responsible for myself. All I ask from the government in return is to let me be responsible for myself. The fact is that legalization will decrease experimentation, which will decrease use, which will decrease dependancy.
The solution, clearly, is to make it harder to get meth, not to make it legal in some "controlled" way so that it's even easier to inflict the harm on others.
America has been trying that. I seems to be working swimmingly so far, doesn't it?
This is just insulting.
Sorry you feel that way, but I still have yet to see a logical counter-argument. bardo_trout went so far as to admit that he was arguing from emotion and supposition. (Mad love to the bardo.)
Don't forget that if legalization occurs, we will have people who are casual users of hard drugs, and many people are introduced to drugs through friends. So along with removing the mitigating factors of safety, accessibility, and price, legalization also facilitates the process of drugs spreading socially.
By the way, drug regulation doesn't reduce drug addictiveness. Or, if regulation decreases the potency of hard drugs so much that they're not addictive, then people will still opt to buy the more potent (and illegal) versions of those drugs.
EDIT: When has legalization of anything led to a decrease in its usage?
By the way, drug regulation doesn't reduce drug addictiveness. Or, if regulation decreases the potency of hard drugs so much that they're not addictive, then people will still opt to buy the more potent (and illegal) versions of those drugs.
Or simply buy more of the legal, weaker, drug.
Note, LJustus, that I oppose amphetamines and narcotics being decriminalized, and not all drugs.
My point still stands, however. You're arguing with an apparent lack of experience on the matter.
Quote from fadeblue »
EDIT: When has legalization of anything led to a decrease in its usage?
This little piece offers some interesting perspective on the history of alcohol in North America, but the relevant portion is as follows:
Popular opinion is equally inconclusive; a survey conducted by the American Institute of Public Opinion in 1936 asked whether conditions (drinking customs, consumption, etc.) were better worse or without significant change since Repeal. 36% indicated a worsening and 31% could see no appreciable change (Harrison & Laine, 1936: 2). Perhaps indicative of a gradual process of adjustment, however, the results of later Gallup polls suggest a gradual decline in the use of alcohol. Of a national sample, 67% indicated they used alcohol in 1945, in contrast to 60% in 1950 and 55% in 1958 (Gusfield, 1963: 135).
I would hardly consider that as solid evidence, but it is worth consideration.
LJustus argued that legalization would lead to "removal of the mystery and 'coolness' associated with doing something 'bad'." We would still need to weigh that against the countereffect of making something socially acceptable, particularly among the college-age population. It's not hard to imagine an increase in the number of people (especially in college) willing to experiment with hard drugs, increasing the overall risk factor of addiction.
Consider premarital sex. While once considered taboo, it has become widely socially acceptable, and it appears that it has seen a general increase in our society. On the other hand, something like cigarette smoking has become less socially acceptable, leading to a general decrease in sales. Demand is largely controlled by the social circumstances, and I would argue that legalizing hard drugs would lead to higher demand because of the removal of social taboos.
Consider premarital sex. While once considered taboo, it has become widely socially acceptable, and it appears that it has seen a general increase in our society. On the other hand, something like cigarette smoking has become less socially acceptable, leading to a general decrease in sales. Demand is largely controlled by the social circumstances, and I would argue that legalizing hard drugs would lead to higher demand because of the removal of social taboos.
Well said.
Paranthetically, you really need to post in the OM threads more fadeblue. I've missed you.
The citizens of Los Angeles would tend to disagree with you. There are many cases of accidental deaths of innocent victims caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting. The gun did not commit the crime. The criminal who used the gun did. Why did he commit the crime? Because the drug industry is a lucrative one.
Okay, now replace "The drug industry is a lucrative one" with "because he was hopped up and didn't know much better". I don't like either of those sentences, but we can't prevent either. However, I'm fairly certain more people OD every year than get shot as bystanders, so we're eliminating the lesser of two evils by increasing the first one. This action maes no sense.
Quote from LJustus »
How is anyone arguing for legalization arguing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people? The logical argument that is being made is that crime will DECREASE if drugs were legalized. There would be no good reason for gangs to trade in drugs because legitimate companies would compete to supply them.
You're setting up a situation in which anyone can buy drugs legally. A situation in which innocent people partaking in a legal act can (and will) die from an overdose, or get cancer (if you want to tell me that pot doesn't cause cancer I have a man who I'd like you to meet. He used to live across the street from me until lung cancer killed his wife. She smoked pot). That's not right. You're changing it so that people who are doing something legally are dying for no reason. You shouldn't legalise that.
Quote from LJustus »
Please pay attention.
I try, I really do, but sometimes the stupid is crushing
Quote from LJ »
do: If all the guns evaporated at once, and all the knowledge of guns went with it, the people that ruled the world would be those with the best swords/bows/clubs. The guns are not the problem. (But this is a discussion for another thread. Note, I am not necessarily advocating the creation of said thread.)
It takes training to operate a bow or properly use a sword. 4 year olds can operate a handgun in a deadly manner.
Quote from LJ »
Perhaps that person's family/friends would be better off without him if the person is willing to trade a stable family life for drug use. Also, the legality or illegality of the substance makes very little difference. If someone wants drugs, they are very easy to find today.
If someone makes the money for the household they are necessary. It is not your placwe to pass such a judgement. You are damning people to die. That's illegal in this country. We can't give loaded pistols to kids under the excuse3 "only the dumb ones will do themselves in".
Quote from AlatarIstarion »
Alright. I'm going to be very patient with you. When one is engaged in an argument, party A does not lose the argument to party B because party A replaced the word "or" with the word "and" in a quotation. Does that make sense to you? Do you understand that? Can you stop being puerile and debate reasonably, or are you actually in second grade?
Haha, you start with the insults and I'm the second-grader.I think you just lost that one for yourself. Also, you lose at trolling, stop trying to barn me, etc.
Quote from AI »
In spite of your certainty, you're wrong. The vast majority of the harm caused by the war on drugs is 1) economic, due to the expendature of resources to fight them, 2) the funding of organized crime within the US and 3) the funding of paramilitary forces in drug-growing countries who are fighting wars (Hint: Wars cause people to die who don't do drugs).
Well, it seems you have the magical "Book of equivalencies between human lives and US dollars". I best leave you alone. Oh, wait, no. And wars cause people to die who live in drug-supporting countries, and those wars are funded by people who break the law. The way to fix this is to make drug users fear prosecution, not by eliminating laws. We should make harsh laws for drug use, not eliminate them.
Quote from AI »
First of all, I never have nor do I have interest in using the illegal drugs we're talking about. Second and most importantly, the fact that drugs are illegal now does not stop them from harming people who abuse them. You're somehow concluding that everyone will start doing drugs if they are no longer illegal, where this is clearly false.
I don't see where this is clear, unless you're trying to say that I ever said "everyone" would use drugs, in which case you're once again putting words in my mouth and are better off conceding. And yes, it does harm people that use it, but those people are breaking the law, so I don't have a problem with them injuring themselves. They know that it's illegal, and they do it anyway. If they die, it's their hands, not those of the government to blame. Once you smoke pot you're no longer innocent since you're committing a crime, so I have less of a problem if you die.
Quote from AI »
Ok, your an idiot. I'll stop arguing with you and try to address real questions.
Thank you for your concession. A said you lost last post and you just confirmed it. You can't win because you're not right, so you escape by calling me an idiot. GG sir, GG.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
In case it wasn't obvious before, I'm gonna let LJ and AI in on a little secret:
Plastik only comes to the OM to troll. When he makes a post in these forums, ignore it.
No, Denver, I actually have a point here. Dismissing me as a troll usually works (since you'tre usually right) but here, I'm right. I have personal friends who have died from drugs. Now stop calling me a troll, you heartless bastard, and realise I have a valid point.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Also, you lose at trolling, stop trying to barn me, etc.
That actually made me chuckle.
And Alatar, don't condescend. I wouldn't call Plastik a troll, as Denver does above this post, but it degrades your credibility as well. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere (with me anyway. ;)).
Quote from Plastik »
The way to fix this is to make drug users fear prosecution, not by eliminating laws.
In case you haven't noticed, this has been a dismal failure. There's something about drug trafficking and use (probably because we're dealing with drugs that blunt reality), that allows some people to ignore the consequences of their actions. That's why they're called drugs!
Quote from Plastik »
We should make harsh laws for drug use, not eliminate them.
That isn't going to solve the problem any more than increasing the penalties for drunk driving. Once you're behind the wheel, you're not giving much of a **** about the consequences if the cops pull you over.
Quote from Plastik »
If they die, it's their hands, not those of the government to blame.
Sure, if only the users were the only victims in drug usage. But it's not.
Quote from Denver »
Plastik only comes to the OM to troll. When he makes a post in these forums, ignore it.
Maybe I'm drunk or something, but I like Plastik's posts. If we all agreed on stuff, there'd be no reason to debate on the Internet. It would be such a senseless waste of time -- which isn't to say that it isn't. But, you're awesome too Denver. And you're responsible for more than your share of trollery. I don't need to remind you, do I?
Quote from Plastik »
Dismissing me as a troll usually works (since you'tre usually right) but here, I'm right. I have personal friends who have died from drugs. Now stop calling me a troll, you heartless bastard, and realise I have a valid point.
And just for the debate's sake, your point being...
Maybe I'm drunk or something, but I like Plastik's posts. If we all agreed on stuff, there'd be no reason to debate on the Internet. It would be such a senseless waste of time -- which isn't to say that it isn't. But, you're awesome too Denver. And you're responsible for more than your share of trollery. I don't need to remind you, do I?
uhh, no, no need to remind anyone of anything. Especially not the source of my name...
In case you haven't noticed, this has been a dismal failure. There's something about drug trafficking and use (probably because we're dealing with drugs that blunt reality), that allows some people to ignore the consequences of their actions. That's why they're called drugs!
Note that the person purchsing the drugs is sober (well, the first time at least) and has the presence of mind (it is assumed) to think about the consequences.
Quote from Bardo »
That isn't going to solve the problem any more than increasing the penalties for drunk driving. Once you're behind the wheel, you're not giving much of a **** about the consequences if the cops pull you over.
See above (no, smartass, don't go to dictionary.com and quote the definition of above, despite the comical value inherent with making me look stupid. Look at the response I just made above the quote. HA! GOTCHA THERE!)
Quote from Bardo »
Sure, if only the users were the only victims in drug usage. But it's not.
I tend to think that drug usage would rise if drugs were legalised, and that old "I got drunk and murdered my ex for breaking up with me" story converts so easily into "I got high/shot up/huffed paint thinner and murdered my ex for breaking up with me", and the less words we have to fill that space legally, the less people are likely to do it.
Quote from Bardo »
Maybe I'm drunk or something, but I like Plastik's posts. If we all agreed on stuff, there'd be no reason to debate on the Internet. It would be such a senseless waste of time -- which isn't to say that it isn't. But, you're awesome too Denver. And you're responsible for more than your share of trollery. I don't need to remind you, do I?
I'm a special blend. I do troll in my posts, and I do it a lot, but I also make valid points, and it's a good system because the only people who get mad about blatant trolling are equally blatant idiots, so I know who to waste time replying to and who it is a waste of time replying to. Kinda like a spam filter for idiots.
Crap, I just got an image in my head of a net with a bunch of idiots tangled up in it.
Quote from Bardo »
And just for the debate's sake, your point being...
Drugz ar badd.
No, honestly, that legalization of currently illegal drugs is a step in a very bad direction, and that we should instead increase enforcement efforts to attempt to drive the drug subculture back into the underground or possibly entirely out of the country, rather than the major subculture it is now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
I'm hesitant as to allowing the legalization of truly debilitating or toxic drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. but see no harm in allowing marijuana. The drug has comparably milder effects than widely available alcohol. Plus, it frees up the prison system and tax dollars. Attaching a tax to using it and then assigning a social stigma to it would also be a far more effective method of eliminating it than pushing it into the "underground".
Edit- HEY, I have an idea. How about instead of making blanket statements like "legalization increases/decreases use", we try to put some numbers in this thread. I am sure there are statistics somewhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
Attaching a tax to using it and then assigning a social stigma to it would also be a far more effective method of eliminating it than pushing it into the "underground".
Easier said than done. I don't know how we can manipulate stigmas and "coolness" factors as many suggest. I doubt that legalization would have a strong effect in such regards either way, or at least reduced stigma would be counter-acted by decreased "coolness." But "coolness" does seem like a really fuzzy concept to me.
Quote from TheBlueWizard »
Edit- HEY, I have an idea. How about instead of making blanket statements like "legalization increases/decreases use", we try to put some numbers in this thread. I am sure there are statistics somewhere.
It's a good idea, but somebody needs to go out and find them :).
To be honest, the solution is anything but clear to me. It appears that there are no good options for how to deal with illegal drugs -- whether or not they're legal or punished, people will still use them to **** up themselves and those around them.
What I absolutely don't believe in is anyone's supposed "right" to act spectacularly stupid if that right infringes on somebody else's rights in a likely very serious manner. So I don't think the government can endorse the use of that more dangerous class of addictive drugs than pot/alcohol/tobacco.
I also agree that we may have better uses for our jails than housing crack addicts just because they abuse drugs. Prison is not an effective deterent for users. I would suggest instead cracking down even harder on dealers, but of course the lines become very blurred as people become desperate. But you don't really want people back out on the streets, either.
The issue with legalization is that it makes drugs both more widely available, reliable, maybe slightly safer and likely a bit cheaper. That's great for the potential drug user, but not so for those who want to limit (ab)use with any methods available. Legalizing drugs but tightly restricting them will just mean that the illegal market will persist.
At this point, I'm inclined to give up and say we don't have a solution. I think we're doing, more or less, the best we can in the war against drugs. Slight changes in policy are appropriate, but little more.
Edit- HEY, I have an idea. How about instead of making blanket statements like "legalization increases/decreases use", we try to put some numbers in this thread. I am sure there are statistics somewhere.
6, 11, 14, 42, 337, 2651, 19746.
That's all the numbers I have, but I'm fairly certain they all support (or are at least indifferent to) my conclusion.
Quote from Darth Cow »
I also agree that we may have better uses for our jails than housing crack addicts just because they abuse drugs. Prison is not an effective deterent for users. I would suggest instead cracking down even harder on dealers, but of course the lines become very blurred as people become desperate. But you don't really want people back out on the streets, either.
Although it is an entirely separate issue with several threads devoted to it, I will state once more here that the United States Prison System is just about the least efficient deterrant to anything and everything ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The relative ease and convenience with which death and murder is meted out is a problem.
This is a very good question and the toughest part of this entire debate. The way to reconcile this within the framework of a society would be to censure acts resulting from drug use which harm others, much as we do with any other potentially dangerous activity (such as driving a car, drinking, etc). As I alluded to in my opening post, driving under the influence of drugs should of course be illegal (and in my opinion drunk driving should carry a much stiffer penalty). The same can be said of individuals who engage in abuse or neglect as a result of drug use; this is illegal when its alcohol related, so logically it would be if related to other drugs as well.
Finally (I don't remember if I mentioned this yet or not:p), legalization of drugs would lead to careful regulation of dosage and purity, thereby decreasing the negative effects and chance for biological addiction.
Side Note: I'd absolutely love to get into the Second Amendment debate in another thread, but I'm gonna stick to the issue at hand here. 8^)
Note: you should edit the post above me Alatar and put the first paragraph in [ quote]s. It's confusing if you don't know that you're replying to someone (me, in this case).
Heroin is a biologically addictive agent regardless of purity, etc. Just so you know.
Lol thanks, I've fixed it. This is what I get for posting quickly.
Yes, of course. In fact, its more addictive the more pure it is. That's not what I was implying though; my argument is that the legalization of heroin would create market incentives to create a less harmful version.
All agents that contribute to an end effect are responsible for that end effect. If an agent is an effective variable, as in "true state = effective, false state = ineffective," then it is often called a "root" or "essential cause." A person who breaks into cars (to get money for meth) would otherwise not break into cars it weren't for meth, making meth the "effective variable" and "essential cause."
Your're saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but replacing "guns" with "drugs" and "kill" with "negatively affect." The fundamental difference is that guns don't significantly and physically alter the mind of the user.
Whether or not I make the same case against alcohol or tobacco is moot, but it's a very popular red herring logical fallacy in illegal drug discussions.
So, because one of the logical arguments for the legalization of drugs is that they would lose the taboo, their "coolness" if you will. . .
which causes less people to want to try drugs. . .
which causes less people to become addicted. . .
which results in less secondary crime. . .
then, you should be arguing for legalization.
I believe that the problem with this debate is that one side is arguing logical deductive arguments, and the other is arguing inductive arguments, personal anecdotes, and supposition.
Meth is one of the least "cool" drugs there is. People don't try it because they want to be cool, they try it because they're sad about their life and it makes them feel happy for a while. Legalizing meth is not an antidepressant, I'm afraid.
I've never done drugs because of the illegal mystique about them. I think maybe you might be drawing that conclusion based on supposition and a lack of personal experience.
Legalization will make drugs "safer" and certainly cheaper and more easilly available. How this will not increase use, especially when we aren't taking addicts and dealers out of society, is completely beyond me. That additional use will result in more addiction, crime and negative externalities, far more so than those inflicted on innocent parties by drug dealers.
We can do a simple calculation of the number of lives lost by each, but I cannot imagine how the lives lost because of organized crime with drugs is greater than the number of lives lost by drug abuse. In Oregon alone, something like 70% of the kids in the state foster family program had parents who were meth users (The Oregonian had a long article series about this). That's thousands of childrens in completely broken homes. Doesn't the evidence speak for itself? The solution, clearly, is to make it harder to get meth, not to make it legal in some "controlled" way so that it's even easier to inflict the harm on others.
This is just insulting.
Actually, if you read some of the leading experts in the field, they all agree that the taboo, or coolness, and the resulting peer pressure is one of the main reasons that kids try drugs. I could google you up about a thousand links, but I figured I didn't need to because this is basically common knowledge.
I never started using drugs because of the taboo, but you and I are not "everybody". Other people don't always make good decisions.
Dealers would most likely be a thing of the past if drugs were legalized. Business that wanted to could produce drugs (regulated by the FDA) far cheaper than the average dealer. then, the goods would be sold in a store - much like alcohol and tobacco are today. I don't see a lot of alcohol/tobacco dealers standing on the street corners. Do you?
That's just it though. . . the logical argument is that legalization will decrease drug use. Not only that, but it will reduce violent crime associated with drug use.
I came from a broken home - not due to drug use, but a broken home nonetheless. I am responsible for myself. All I ask from the government in return is to let me be responsible for myself. The fact is that legalization will decrease experimentation, which will decrease use, which will decrease dependancy.
America has been trying that. I seems to be working swimmingly so far, doesn't it?
Sorry you feel that way, but I still have yet to see a logical counter-argument. bardo_trout went so far as to admit that he was arguing from emotion and supposition. (Mad love to the bardo.)
By the way, drug regulation doesn't reduce drug addictiveness. Or, if regulation decreases the potency of hard drugs so much that they're not addictive, then people will still opt to buy the more potent (and illegal) versions of those drugs.
EDIT: When has legalization of anything led to a decrease in its usage?
Or simply buy more of the legal, weaker, drug.
Note, LJustus, that I oppose amphetamines and narcotics being decriminalized, and not all drugs.
My point still stands, however. You're arguing with an apparent lack of experience on the matter.
This little piece offers some interesting perspective on the history of alcohol in North America, but the relevant portion is as follows:
LJustus argued that legalization would lead to "removal of the mystery and 'coolness' associated with doing something 'bad'." We would still need to weigh that against the countereffect of making something socially acceptable, particularly among the college-age population. It's not hard to imagine an increase in the number of people (especially in college) willing to experiment with hard drugs, increasing the overall risk factor of addiction.
Consider premarital sex. While once considered taboo, it has become widely socially acceptable, and it appears that it has seen a general increase in our society. On the other hand, something like cigarette smoking has become less socially acceptable, leading to a general decrease in sales. Demand is largely controlled by the social circumstances, and I would argue that legalizing hard drugs would lead to higher demand because of the removal of social taboos.
This is not a fact.
Paranthetically, you really need to post in the OM threads more fadeblue. I've missed you.
But I'll make an effort in the future. I've missed you and the rest of the OM as well
Okay, now replace "The drug industry is a lucrative one" with "because he was hopped up and didn't know much better". I don't like either of those sentences, but we can't prevent either. However, I'm fairly certain more people OD every year than get shot as bystanders, so we're eliminating the lesser of two evils by increasing the first one. This action maes no sense.
You're setting up a situation in which anyone can buy drugs legally. A situation in which innocent people partaking in a legal act can (and will) die from an overdose, or get cancer (if you want to tell me that pot doesn't cause cancer I have a man who I'd like you to meet. He used to live across the street from me until lung cancer killed his wife. She smoked pot). That's not right. You're changing it so that people who are doing something legally are dying for no reason. You shouldn't legalise that.
I try, I really do, but sometimes the stupid is crushing
It takes training to operate a bow or properly use a sword. 4 year olds can operate a handgun in a deadly manner.
If someone makes the money for the household they are necessary. It is not your placwe to pass such a judgement. You are damning people to die. That's illegal in this country. We can't give loaded pistols to kids under the excuse3 "only the dumb ones will do themselves in".
Haha, you start with the insults and I'm the second-grader.I think you just lost that one for yourself. Also, you lose at trolling, stop trying to barn me, etc.
Well, it seems you have the magical "Book of equivalencies between human lives and US dollars". I best leave you alone. Oh, wait, no. And wars cause people to die who live in drug-supporting countries, and those wars are funded by people who break the law. The way to fix this is to make drug users fear prosecution, not by eliminating laws. We should make harsh laws for drug use, not eliminate them.
I don't see where this is clear, unless you're trying to say that I ever said "everyone" would use drugs, in which case you're once again putting words in my mouth and are better off conceding. And yes, it does harm people that use it, but those people are breaking the law, so I don't have a problem with them injuring themselves. They know that it's illegal, and they do it anyway. If they die, it's their hands, not those of the government to blame. Once you smoke pot you're no longer innocent since you're committing a crime, so I have less of a problem if you die.
Thank you for your concession. A said you lost last post and you just confirmed it. You can't win because you're not right, so you escape by calling me an idiot. GG sir, GG.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Plastik only comes to the OM to troll. When he makes a post in these forums, ignore it.
No, Denver, I actually have a point here. Dismissing me as a troll usually works (since you'tre usually right) but here, I'm right. I have personal friends who have died from drugs. Now stop calling me a troll, you heartless bastard, and realise I have a valid point.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
And Alatar, don't condescend. I wouldn't call Plastik a troll, as Denver does above this post, but it degrades your credibility as well. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere (with me anyway. ;)).
In case you haven't noticed, this has been a dismal failure. There's something about drug trafficking and use (probably because we're dealing with drugs that blunt reality), that allows some people to ignore the consequences of their actions. That's why they're called drugs!
That isn't going to solve the problem any more than increasing the penalties for drunk driving. Once you're behind the wheel, you're not giving much of a **** about the consequences if the cops pull you over.
Sure, if only the users were the only victims in drug usage. But it's not.
Maybe I'm drunk or something, but I like Plastik's posts. If we all agreed on stuff, there'd be no reason to debate on the Internet. It would be such a senseless waste of time -- which isn't to say that it isn't. But, you're awesome too Denver. And you're responsible for more than your share of trollery. I don't need to remind you, do I?
And just for the debate's sake, your point being...
uhh, no, no need to remind anyone of anything. Especially not the source of my name...
Note that the person purchsing the drugs is sober (well, the first time at least) and has the presence of mind (it is assumed) to think about the consequences.
See above (no, smartass, don't go to dictionary.com and quote the definition of above, despite the comical value inherent with making me look stupid. Look at the response I just made above the quote. HA! GOTCHA THERE!)
I tend to think that drug usage would rise if drugs were legalised, and that old "I got drunk and murdered my ex for breaking up with me" story converts so easily into "I got high/shot up/huffed paint thinner and murdered my ex for breaking up with me", and the less words we have to fill that space legally, the less people are likely to do it.
I'm a special blend. I do troll in my posts, and I do it a lot, but I also make valid points, and it's a good system because the only people who get mad about blatant trolling are equally blatant idiots, so I know who to waste time replying to and who it is a waste of time replying to. Kinda like a spam filter for idiots.
Crap, I just got an image in my head of a net with a bunch of idiots tangled up in it.
Drugz ar badd.
No, honestly, that legalization of currently illegal drugs is a step in a very bad direction, and that we should instead increase enforcement efforts to attempt to drive the drug subculture back into the underground or possibly entirely out of the country, rather than the major subculture it is now.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.
Edit- HEY, I have an idea. How about instead of making blanket statements like "legalization increases/decreases use", we try to put some numbers in this thread. I am sure there are statistics somewhere.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
It's a good idea, but somebody needs to go out and find them :).
To be honest, the solution is anything but clear to me. It appears that there are no good options for how to deal with illegal drugs -- whether or not they're legal or punished, people will still use them to **** up themselves and those around them.
What I absolutely don't believe in is anyone's supposed "right" to act spectacularly stupid if that right infringes on somebody else's rights in a likely very serious manner. So I don't think the government can endorse the use of that more dangerous class of addictive drugs than pot/alcohol/tobacco.
I also agree that we may have better uses for our jails than housing crack addicts just because they abuse drugs. Prison is not an effective deterent for users. I would suggest instead cracking down even harder on dealers, but of course the lines become very blurred as people become desperate. But you don't really want people back out on the streets, either.
The issue with legalization is that it makes drugs both more widely available, reliable, maybe slightly safer and likely a bit cheaper. That's great for the potential drug user, but not so for those who want to limit (ab)use with any methods available. Legalizing drugs but tightly restricting them will just mean that the illegal market will persist.
At this point, I'm inclined to give up and say we don't have a solution. I think we're doing, more or less, the best we can in the war against drugs. Slight changes in policy are appropriate, but little more.
6, 11, 14, 42, 337, 2651, 19746.
That's all the numbers I have, but I'm fairly certain they all support (or are at least indifferent to) my conclusion.
Although it is an entirely separate issue with several threads devoted to it, I will state once more here that the United States Prison System is just about the least efficient deterrant to anything and everything ever.
I have no extendo-sig. Sorry, I'm just not vain enough to think someone will click on it.